Limitation for reassessment does not bar fresh assessment made under binding judicial directions after retrospective statutory amendment.

Reassessment of inter-State turnover carried out to give effect to binding Supreme Court directions, after retrospective amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act, was treated as part of a continuous assessment chain rather than ordinary escaped-turnover proceedings. The court held that the limitation under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, did not bar such reassessment, because the usual time limit did not operate in the same way where a fresh order was passed pursuant to judicial directions. The limitation plea was rejected and the reassessment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment of inter-State sales, made more than five years after the expiry of the relevant assessment year, was barred by limitation under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to limitation. The turnover was not treated as escaped turnover in the ordinary sense; the original assessment proceedings, appellate proceedings, and the later reassessment all formed part of a continuous chain after the Supreme Court remitted the matter for fresh assessment in the light of the retrospective amendments to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The limitation provisions relied upon by the assessees were considered inapplicable to a reassessment carried out to give effect to the Supreme Court's directions. The principle that a limitation intended for the benefit of an assessee can be waived or may not operate in the same manner where a fresh order is passed pursuant to binding judicial directions was applied.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and the reassessment was held not to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The tax revision case failed and the reassessment of the inter-State turnover under the Central Sales Tax regime was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment made in obedience to binding judicial directions, especially after retrospective statutory amendment, is not defeated by the ordinary limitation applicable to reassessment proceedings for escaped turnover.

---